Aylesbury Vale Area

Object

VALP Main Modifications

Representation ID: 2818

Received: 25/11/2019

Respondent: Mr K B Robinson

Legally compliant? No

Sound? No

Representation Summary:

I do not agree with the changes in MM 101 that increase the size of the plot size and no longer limit the number of houses to 170(Officer's summary).

1 )MMO 006 is incorrectly catagorised as a medium village.
2) AVDC deciding unilaterally to place MMO 006 into VALP
3) Lack of attention devoted to Highways and Public transport.
4) Sustainability conflicting positions by AVDC
5) Rural Setting statements at odds with VALP para 9.51
6)HELAA v4 designation of site MMO 006 as suitable for development.

Change suggested by respondent:

Policy MMO 006 needs to be deleted from the VALP to be able to make VALP
sound and legally compliant

Full text:

Representation follows:-
1) Subject : categorised incorrectly as a medium village I do not agree with the changes in MM 101 that increase the size of the plot and no longer limit the number of houses to 170.
The errors in the Settlement Hierarchy make the
allocation of site MMO 006 unsound and not legally compliant .
Maids Moreton (MM) has been categorised incorrectly as a medium village because the false statement in the Settlement Hierarchy Para 5.16 stating that MM has 6 key criteria. The truth is that MM only has 4 key criteria. Therefore MM is a smaller village as defined in the Settlement Hierarchy Para 5.18 ( I refer to ED 228)
Therefore the housing allocation of MMO 006 is unsound and not legally compliant and does not agree with the statement in Para 41 of the Inspectors Interim findings .MM did not support the allocations.
VALP para 4.153 ( now para 4.148 ) shows that 170 houses is excessive for a medium village.

2) Subject: AVDC deciding unilaterally to place MMO 006 into VALP
The process adopted by AVDC in changing the status of MMO 006 in VALP is
obviously unsound and not legally compliant ( See ED 227)
Background : During the examination stage , the regulation 19 objectors were informed that site MMO 006 would be deleted from the VALP. Then AVDC changed its position on the allocation of MMO 006 prior to the hearing session and the objectors were not made aware that the hearing session was to be held.
AVDC tried to cover this unfairness by stating in an e mail to the inspector dated 25/3/19 that MMO 006 had been erroneously included on the agenda for Session Hearing 34. The allocation of MMO 006 has not been openly discussed.

3) Subject: Lack of attention devoted to Highways and Public transport.
The allocation of site MMO 006 is contrary to NPPF para 34 .
The statements made in the Inspector's interim findings para 36 state that the VALP is unsound . I do not agree with the modifications of increasing the size of the plot and no longer limiting the no. of houses to170 on the grounds that it contradicts the NPPF in detail and the whole allocation is unsound and not legally compliant.

4) Subject: Sustainablity
Technical Annex to the VALP sustainability appraisal states that site MMO 006 is
the least sustainable site in Maids Moreton. This document is contained in the Final
consultation . The allocation of site MMO 006 contradicts VALP para 4.152 ( now para 4.147) by claiming that the most sustainable site in Maids Moreton has been allocated for development. Allocating site MMO 006 in the VALP contradicts NPPF paras 151 and 165, and makes para 4.152( now 4.147) totally contradictory.

5) Subject : Rural setting of site MMO 006
Insufficient attention has been given to the rural setting of site MMO 006 in allocating the site into VALP. The NPPF paras 17 and 112 are at odds with VALP para 9.51. VALP para 9.51 has been determined by HELAA v3(2016) and the site allocations in the VALP have been determined by HELAA v4(2017) .
Para9.51 has incorrect facts if MMO 006 is in VALP. Therefore VALP is unsound.
6) Subject : HELAA v4 designation of site MMO 006 as suitable for development.
There was no public or parish or town council consultation on this topic.
Therefore this designation is in breach of NPPF para 155 and HELAA methodology paras 1.20 and 1.21 and the PPG para 3-008. It also breaches of HELM v4 appendix 2.
I do not agree with the modifications of increasing the size of the plot and no longer
limiting the number of houses to 170 , and more importantly the allocation of the site is not sound or legally compliant.